His presentation “Do you still need a website?” played off of a now slightly-famous article he wrote for Ad Age about a month ago. Pete upended much of the social hype and defended websites, as long as they continue to evolve to be more timely, adaptive, and content-oriented:

A smart website feeds and refreshes the brand stands. It anchors the brand database, arguably the most coveted asset, and sets the tone and standard for the brand’s ethos and attitude about feedback, expression and service. Put another way, it establishes that first critical (often unforgettable) impression. A great website also smartly syndicates, re-circulates and curates social content from the brand stands.

Based on the comments from the social media-saturated crowd, many disagreed with him, with one gentleman stating flatly that all he needed was for somebody to “like” his brand on Facebook and he had all that was required to market to them. Several people declared in side coversations that websites are dead and that many businesses can function just fine with only a presence on the social web.

The presentation was certainly lively, the time was short, and I had been left wishing that I had a way to comment more fully on the talk. Oh wait. I do.

Pete and I are aligned in our view of the website and its changing role in the era of the social web. In fact, I am presenting today on a subject that will compliment his discussion quite nicely. **

However, in the entire hour-long discussion, the most important reason for a sustaining a website was entirely neglected: This is the place where you ask people for their money.

Sure, social media is great for engaging and listening, customer service and research, creating loyalty and telling stories. But rarely do we ever use it to really, truly sell stuff. In fact, selling is the antithesis of social. But at some point, we all need to make a living. Yes, customers can be our Facebook friends, but they still have money and we want it.

In fact, I think the best social media marketing strategy is to systematically populate outposts (or “brandstands” as Pete calls them) that direct people BACK to a website that asks, “Hey Bub, how about buying something now?” And that’s one of the primary reasons why most organizations will always need a website … to ask people to give you their money, sign up for your webinar, donate to your charity, enroll in your university or whatever else you need them to do. It is where the action takes place that sustains your organization. You can’t feed a family with tweets or page views.

Now of course quite sophisticated eCommerce systems are emerging on Facebook and will probably show up in other channels too. But I have to ask you, do you really want to hand the family jewels to Facebook?

During the conference, a new friend told me the story of a brand that spent $20,000 on a glorious eCommerce application for their Facebook site. A day before the site launched, Facebook changed the underlying technical requirements, obsoleting the entire development initiative. It could have been worse — the brand could have already launched and had the connection to their revenue stream go down indefinitely.

The point is, we don’t have to be “social” about everything. Sometimes mission critical processes like collecting money from people should reside in the cozy confines of your good ol’ IT department.

In the end, the only thing you really own on the Internet is your website. Let’s not be too quick to bury it.

** I believe a podcast is being made of the event and if I’ll let you know if and when it’s available.

http://www.skypulsemedia.com Howie at Sky Pulse Media

Mark you are dangerous. All I can say. You look innocent but your not. You know this. It’s one of your competitive advantages.

We already saw with the Dotcom and Real Estate market how many people jump on waves until they crash. We also know that most $bil + businesses are not viewing social as a major economic driver. Not until something is proven. That is what got them to that size. Smarts.

BUT…I love buts. While some companies have no choice but to have websites, not all can ask for money. Some are simply info/data driven. I come from heavy engineering my last corp gig. If I am choosing a rocket to launch a satellite Boeing and Lockheed have all the specs I need on their website. Also some B2C don’t need anything big time. Does Kraft Mac and Cheese need anything but ingredients and some recipes?

But I agree with your premise. Even Kraft can use their website to help close the sale. I can see something about their Mac and Cheese that gives me faith in my choice (beyond taste, price etc). And Boeing can prime a close too.

For the rest there should always be a connection to an instant buy either directly via your own store or who sells your product. Every time.

Mark

@Howie — Yes, Danger is my middle name.

I think the focus on B2C is where the discussion got off track for me. Of course here in Cincinnati we’re in the heart of P&G country. But you and I know that there are many, many companies, nonprofits and universities who don’t depend on an impulse buy in a grocery store to survive. The nature of their businesses, buyers and buying cycles probably means that a website will be important to their marketing efforts for a long time to come.

Yay! I’m so sick of execs telling me that Facebook is where it’s at. Loved the annecdote about the company that got screwed when FB changed their specs. This is exactly the case in point. You own your website. You can do what you want with it. And if you successfully drive people to your site (thru social media, interruptive media, search, etc) you have the chance to convert.

Time and again I come up against companies where the communications people are in conflict with the marketing dpt because the comms people focus on communication (social) and the marketing dpt is still entrenched in web 2.0 and not social.

Anyone else find this?

And here’s one more question, while I’m at it: have customers lost sight of good old-fashioned blogs?

http://www.twitter.com/steve_dodd steve dodd

So true! What we are seeing is the evolution of the website, not a replacement for it. This attitude is not unlike the direction the banking industry took not to many years ago when they closed many branches because they falsely believed online banking would make them redundant. They’ve since found this not to be the case and are now opening new branches faster than ever! Why? Because they needed “grounding”. A place where their customers could go to get service and information.
The website is no different. It’s a place for customers, partners and other interested parties can obtain “official” information, buy products, get service etc.. The social element is a way to enhance this information, generate traffic and overall interest.
But most importantly, it’s their “real estate”, their asset and something they can control, manage, own and take full responsibility for.
Great observations, Mark!
@Howie – @Jon – exactly gents, exactly!

Mark

@Jon — I love that we ar at e point in the maturity of the channel that we can noe refer to blogs as “old-fashioned!” : )

You bring up a vital point about the conflict in organizations about roles and ownership. I agree that bringing down these silos is difficult but also necessary to be most effective. Thanks for adding your wisdom today, Jon!

@Steve — I really like that bank analogy and also think at some point there could be a renaissance for websites once companies realize that folks are sick of being marketed to and simply want to spend their evening on Facebook connecting with friends and playing Farmville. Besides, as the fight for attention on the social web escalates, so will the budgets needed to compete. Will be less accessible for small businesses. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts, Steve.

http://ericpratum.com Eric Pratum

Let me start out by saying that I shifted from working solely in SM for large clients like clients like Microsoft to now working in larger online marketing strategy (but still mostly SM) for large nonprofits like The Salvation Army. Not long after I made the transition, I went to a nonprofit tech conference and attempted to sit through a panel talk on social media for nonprofits. I nearly wanted to throw up as they claimed that social media was all nonprofits need for success. Unfortunately, I would have been the douche in the room because everybody else was eating it up. Saying, “Prove that your circumstance wasn’t the exception,” probably would not have won me many friends.

When I talk with current and potential clients, I always try to help them understand that social media as a channel is predominantly effective for marketing and not so much for fundraising…Yes, it has worked at times, but it is generally during a time of high need: right after a disaster, when public attention has shifted to a certain topic quickly, etc. It’s difficult to fundraise to people when your only way to contact them individually is an @ reply or forum PM.

In my mind, you can market and build awareness well in social media, but eventually, you have to demonstrate enough value in other channels for people to want to: visit your website frequently, sign up for your newsletter, donate, etc.

http://askaaronlee.com Aaron

Great blog post Mark,
Danger is your middle name indeed. Nobody should ever bury their website. I mean its their website and they can do anything with it compared to social sites like facebook or twitter where we are limited there.

Moreover what happens if people dedicated all their time and effort onto social websites and one it ends up being like myspace? (sorry myspace)

I talked a little about this before and I did say that the platforms might change. So sticking with a web will be better. Why? they are there. People will still read it. Look at Chris Brogan blogs. He’s been blogging since 2004. Myspace was hot then. Look at them today

This article gave me an idea for how to describe all the websites that just stumble along. Zombie sites. The living dead frontline rep for a dormant brand that scares more visitors away than it attracts, converses with and converts to leads, referrals or loyal friendships.

http://socialmarkworkshop.com Josh Muirhead

Hello and good day Mark

This time…there is not two sides, there is really only one, and that is…

I agree (I know I was shocked myself)

No, all kidding aside, those who feel that they only need Facebook (as shown in your example above), is like telling someone 10 years ago, “All you need to do to communicate your message is to use TV”

And the idea of not having a primary place for your business, it seems a little odd to me.

Much like you said in your post Mark, if nothing else websites are for “selling stuff”, as most people really don’t like it when you try and sell them something right thought Facebook / Twitter / YouTube ext.

Even more, from a business development point of you – If you own your website, you control how it looks, feels and functions. If you want an eCommerce section – Great. If you would like people to subscribe to a newsletter – Go for it.

People must stop thinking in terms of “This way OR that way” and have to start thinking “alright, how are we going to bring this all together”

For some reason, when the word FREE comes up, people forget that their is actually a point/goal to all this.

Excellent post again,

Josh

Mark W. Schaefer

@Eric — Wow, that is really a blockbuster comment! Extremely interesting perspective. I hope we have other people with nonprofit experience weigh-in.

@Aaron — This is a very interesting point. I take a view that once a social media niche is filled, it will be very difficult to unseat the major player. What company in their right mind would challenge Facebook right now? If you have 10,000 followers on twitter, are you going to abandon that for a newcomer? I think there will always be new niches, but only one platform per niche in the long-term. People just don’t have the bandwidth for so much diversity. I suspect that some would disagree with me : ) Thanks for you comment!

@Billy — That is just a brilliant characterization. I think that will catch on! Thank you!

@Josh. Glad we agreed on something. I think “integration” is what will really give power to a lot of these social tools. We really started to see it with the Old Spice success. Just the tip of the iceberg. I can certainly see TV shows that change and adapt based on user preferences — alternate outcomes based on fan votes, etc. Appreciate you taking the time to add your perspective today.

For those of us with web-based client applications, we not only HAVE to have a functioning website (its my database I’m protecting behind that firewall…) but it’s where I try to send others who might being interested in joining.

SM is the forum for the stories that attract and entertain us, but as Jamie Lee Wallace said in her blog on {grow} on the 3rd, you have to ask for the sale, and that usually is from your own website.

Thanks for the reminder to keep the home fires (website) burning.

Mark W Schaefer

Any time George! Thanks!

http://ericpratum.com Eric Pratum

@Mark Thank you. Social media might be sexy, but websites are much more effective at giving in-depth information about products and services. Without that, it’s tough to ask for a sale or donation and have any sort of effectiveness.

http://adventuresinofficeimaging.blogspot.com/ Nathan Dube

Mark. Spot on.

We have done pretty well with Social Media here at ELS however, the phone calls that result in sales always come from customers who visited our website.

Mark I couldn’t agree more. Another way of looking at your example of the iPhone app development wasted by a Facebook tweak is this. We’re all now publishers now. So why on earth would a publisher allow a third-party publisher (Facebook or whoever) have complete control over their published content? It doesn’t make business sense. It’s like Simon & Schuster being unable to bring out a book unless Doubleday prints it.

The idea that Facebook or any social network is so vastly superior that it trumps publishing (and as you aptly noted, revenue collection) control is naive to the point of absurdity. Maybe in the near future we’ll stop calling them web sites, but I don’t think WordPress is going anywhere. It’s time to end the relentless drooling about how good it is for marketers to “lose control.” There are a few exceptions, but for the most part it’s total B.S. One does not need to be out of control in order to be responsive to customers.

http://rjstribley@comcast.net RJ Stribley

I hate my website. I HATE my website! Yet what Mark says is so obvious to me (it’s where you ask for the money….at least some) that I can’t believe nobody else said it. My worst fear is that my site becomes a zombie site because I can’t improve it fast enough to warrant it’s existence…but then what? Facebook? I don’t think so.

Mark

@Steve, Yes this is what so many people overlook — handing over the business to Facebook. We are putting too much trust in these companies! Thanks!

@Bob — But, do you hate your website? Here’s the good news: With WordPress and other technologies, it may be easier and cheaper to produce a new, more effective website. Sounds like it might be time to look into this!

http://www.magiccarpetblog.com Mouyyad Abdulhadi

The way I look at it is the website is the clothes you wear before you step out of the house…you have to look presentable and dressed for the occassion…social media is the tool to keep in contact once you leave the house…such as the car to get to your destination or the phone to call people you’re meeting up

Subscribe to {Grow}

Welcome to {grow}

You’re in marketing for one reason: Grow.
Grow your company, reputation, customers, impact, profits. Grow yourself. This is a community that will help. It will stretch your mind, connect you to fascinating people, and provide some fun along the way. I am so glad you’re here.
-Mark Schaefer